Conclusion: FAQ

  1. Did Polanski rape Samantha Gailey? – No, he didn’t. Her medical examination didn’t show any trace of penetration, let alone forcible penetration.
  2. Is Polanski a pedophile? – No, he isn’t. He is medically certified to be completely normal; all his sex partners have always been mature women.
  3. Was Samantha Gailey a child? – No, she wasn’t. Her medical examination defines her as “adult female”; all people who knew her at that time estimate her age at about 18.
  4. Was she a virgin? – No, she wasn’t. She testified to previous sex experience, and stated the same in her interviews.
  5. Was the sex consensual? – Yes, it was. In her interviews, she refers to the event as “just sex”, and any unbiased analysis of her testimony indicates the same; it is corroborated by the conclusion of the probation department.
  6. Did he drug her? – No, he didn’t. She drank some champagne and took a piece of popular recreational drug of her own accord, without being forced or coerced.
  7. Had she been acquainted with champagne or Quaaludes? – Yes to both.
  8. What is Polanski convicted of? – Unlawful sexual intercourse.
  9. Did he serve any time for this? – Yes, he did. In fact, by now he has served more than the term agreed by the judge, the prosecutor, Polanski’s defense attorney, and Geimer and her family.

18 comments:

Anonymous said...

That's great you've put it all together so meticulously and made it clear as clear can be. I can't see why anyone in one's right mind can go on believing and telling lies about Polanski.

Julie said...

I agree with the previous (anonymous) comment. The case is quite clear: no rape, no child, no flight from justice. I am reading Novalis Lore's blog now, it provides further details, but it's your blog that has helped me form my opinion about the case.

Julie

elena_proshina said...

I have read the whole of your blog, still am so impressed, more than impressed, deeply shaken. I have seen almost all his films, and after The Pianist I realized that there can be no better director and a better MAN. I cried through all the movie and then started writing him a letter, didn't send it of course, my words couldn't even approximately convey what I felt. And when I read your Ballad, my first thought was that something has to be done to protect and defend this amazing man. You have done a great thing.

Thank you, everything is so logical, clear, well-documented. It is a real research, but at the same time emotional and true. It is also a discovery of yet another side of american life, a horrifying side. I know you have many friends in the USA and other countries, and they must know that in most liberal democracies terrible mistakes can be made.
I hope (though I understand it is impossible)the USA court and government will apologize to Roman Polanski and reconsider a little their damned bigoted political correctness.

Anonymous said...

Jean thank you for posting Dr Larsons testimony.

Those who read it will see that Dr Larson said there was no physical evidence of sodomy but in some cases there no physical evidence such as when someone has had a bowel movement which Samantha said she did.

It is therefore untrue to say that the physical evidence exonorates Polanski and proves Samantha Geimer is a liar.

I do not know if Polanski raped Samantha but I believe you are wrong to state as a fact that Samantha lied.

Jean said...

Maybe you noticed that in the text of my blog (Chapter 2. Rape?) I do not omit this Larson's statement. I do not hold anything back, guys. I made my conclusion based on everything taken together, not some separate out-of-context fact or statement.

Christian said...

"Did Polanski rape Samantha Gailey? – No, he didn’t. Her medical examination didn’t show any trace of penetration, let alone forcible penetration"

To state this in any part of your blog without mentioning that Dr Larson did not come to the conclusion that a rape cannot have happened and did not rule out anal penetration because Samantha told him she had a bowel movement is not giving the full picture.

I appreciate that you have mentioned this in other parts of your blog and clearly went to a great deal of trouble to find the Larsons testimony but some people could take this statement as fact while forgetting or not reading other parts of the blog.

Jean said...

Christian – right up to this moment I treated you as a serious opponent worthy of respect. Now you’re behaving exactly like those people whose ravings I analyze in Chapter 8: for lack of anything, you recur to the distortion of statements and such logical blunders that they can’t be written off as simple mistakes.

Once again, for the twentieth time: Dr.Larson says it is possible not to find evidence UNLESS intercourse is FORCED. Which means exactly that it was NOT forced, it’s basic logic, what is called modus tollens:

A -> B
No B
Ergo: no A

I’ll translate it for you:

Rape means forced intercourse.
No forced intercourse.
Ergo: no rape.

Yes Christian, he DID come to a conclusion rape hadn’t happened, and he stated it EXPLICITLY IN MEDICAL TERMS, which is all a doctor can do. It is not within a testifying doctor’s competence to say things like “no rape” or “the accuser is lying”. NO EVIDENCE OF FORCED ENTRY is both what he put in his report, and what he testified to. How clearer do you want it to be?

He says he was even unable to find any evidence of any intercourse, and you pretend to understand it the as if he said rape was still not out of the question. You keep repeating, in all your comments, that the total absence of evidence somehow strengthens the prosecution. It is absurd, and shows only your stubborn desire to remain blind.

Q. On your examination of the anus, did you find any evidence which would indicate that a penis had been placed in her anus?
A. No, I did not.
If such had occurred would you expect to find evidence of that entry?
A. Not necessarily.
Q. Is it possible for a penis to enter an anus without any type of injury?
A. Yes, it is.

Nobody ever asks him what are the circumstances under which “a penis” can enter “an anus” without injury. Nobody ever asks him to confirm that it could have been possible in THIS PARTICULAR CASE. Nobody every asks him to estimate the PROBABILITY (do you know the difference between possibility and probability?) of double dry sodomy inflected by a man on an unwilling young girl with normal anatomy leaving no traces whatsoever.

And no, it is NOT like what you’re trying to say – that Dr.Larson said her “bowel movement” would obliterate the traces of entry. He only said it might result in not discovering semen there, and it is an entirely different argument, and yes, I did mention it. You’re trying to pretend you understood him to say bowel movement would obliterate lacerations? Never ever he said anything that idiotic. It is amazing that even now that I put his evidence out there for everyone to see, people STILL read whatever they want into it.

And one more thing about Dr.Larson. When asked if he had had opportunity to examine patients who had been sodomized, he says:

“In other places at other times, yes.”

And NOBODY asks him what the hell he means by this.

In other places, guys. At other times.

Louisa said...

Jean-
Thank you so much for this. Since reading Polanski's autobiography, I have found myself getting into heated arguments with people over his so-called guilt. Being a film student, and a huge admirer of his work, I have been accused of being biased in his favor.

Your point about the "other side" saying that our only argument is that he is a genius who has had a hard life really rings true for me. It has absolutely nothing to do with that. While I admit that had I not been a fan of Polanksi in the first place, I probably would not have looked into this further, that does not make these facts any less real.

I wish that someday, the rest of the world could see him for what he is-- an amazing, brilliant, man. A genius (without the quotation marks)

Jean said...

thank you Louisa! it's comments such as yours that restore my faith in humanity.

Yes, it is important - vital - that the rest of the world sees him for what he is. Please, if you can, draw people's attention to my research, I do believe that there must be other people who are capable of logical reasoning or merely endowed with the ability to read and understand.

Good luck with your studies, and thank you very, very much!

Peter Phile said...

We need to stop making it a crime to rape children if the person makes movies we like.

Jean said...

Thank you for this wonderful comment, Peter. It perfectly sums up all I've written about in Chapter 8: most people don't want to know the truth because it doesn't fit the picture the media formed in their minds.

No documents matter. Really, why bother studying them if you already "know"? Even when they are displayed right here for you only to look, sparing you the effort of finding them, why bother reading? This is a paragon of mob mentality that no amount of documented facts can change. As a very respected, even if disenchanted, friend told me, "you can't teach the deaf to listen or the blind to see".

Tiffany said...

Thank you so much for this! I'm 15, and I've actually been sexually abused, and I cannot express how much I LOATHE people who lie about this kind of things. I'm an admirer of Mr.Polanski, and would love to meet him someday. I feel so awful that an innocent human would be charged with something so horrible. From the second I heard about this case (about two years ago), I knew that something wasn't being told. I knew that something was fishy in this story. And you have absolutely nailed it! You've answered all my questions- thank you!

Jean said...

Tiffany: thank you so much! You don't know - or maybe you do - how important it is for me to hear this. It's so often that women who have suffered from abuse choose Polanski as their ultimate villain, as if they really believe that he has done exactly what was done to them - and then there is no reasoning with them, because in their pain and frustration, they close their minds to any argumentation. As a very intelligent man recently remarked at imdb, Polanski doesn't deserve to be held responsible for their issues... but nevertheless, most Americans have singled him out to be responsible for everything that has ever gone wrong with their lives.

Good luck to you, I wish you all the best! You seem very strong and courageous, and I am sure life has only good things in store for you.

Please, if you can, help me spread the truth.

Thank you!

Tiffany said...

Thank you very much! And I will most certainly spread the truth. On an episode of "The View", everyone there was ignorant, except Whoopi Goldberg to a degree. I wish I could make more of a difference, because no one deserves all the horrible things that has happened to Mr. Polanski.

America is the land of close-mindedness and ignorance-- and suing, apparently. I hate it here, and I'm sure Mr. Polanski is glad he got out of this terrible place.

Amy said...

I've always believed that Polanski was set up, can't believe that there's so much evidence in his favour. Many thanks for blog, I'm now going to show it to my many friends who always disagreed with me on this outrageous debate.

Jean said...

Thank you Amy! I hope at least some of your friends are capable of thinking. Yes, the evidence is overwhelming, and if not for the rampant prejudice, Geimer - and especially her mother - would have been made to answer for this.

Matt said...

I know i'm a little late for this, but I just wanted to thank you for taking the time to put this together, hopefully it will have opened some people's eyes.

I think the most telling things about this case, are that the Swiss refused to extradite him (why would they do that if they thought he was guilty on any level?) and that samantha requested the case be dropped. Being a man I can't be sure of this, but I find it hard to believe that any rape victim would want their attacker to be let free.

I think the saddest point of this, is that even if Samantha comes clean and admits to lying, there will still be people who think "Oh she's only saying that because she's a forgiving person and she want's the press to leave her alone."

He did a stupid thing in having sex with a 13 year old. Whether you beleive it is actually wrong or not, it was against the law and he didn't think of possible repurcussions, but he served his time for that, and he dosen't deserve everything that's happened since.

A little advice though Jean, if people like Christian have read all of this and are still trying to use the old arguments, don't bother trying to argue with him. It's a waste of your time.

Jean said...

Thank you Matt! No, it isn't late - it is never late to learn or tell the truth, especially since the madness has never stopped.

And yes, "a stupid thing" sums it up perfectly... But, true, he has served his time, and one can't go on paying for one stupid thing of 35 years ago indefinitely.

Thank you!